Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: The following Special Report is a news presentation of Minnesota Public Radio.

[ELECTRONIC WHISTLING]

JIM ELLERING: I will not point a gun at either the farmer or a surveyor.

JOHN TRIPP: We must stop, and we will stop their surveying.

DON JACOBSON: I wish CURE and some of those people out there would make up their minds.

PETER GOVE: It's beyond our control.

JIM DUNLOP: Build now, and study later. And the health of the people be damned.

WARREN LAWSON: We could not find, from the searched literature, significant scientific studies validating health effects.

JOHN ROGERS: I am going to the governor and let him make the decision. I don't think this is at a--

GREG BARRON: A high-voltage electric power line-- it'll be more than 400 miles in length stretching across most of North Dakota and Minnesota. The 400,000-volt line will wind its way eastward to the Twin Cities. Along its path live hundreds of Minnesota farmers, and they've fought the line's construction for more than eight months.

It's a fight that has led to court challenges, angry protests, scuffles with law officers, and just recently, arrests. Good evening. I'm Greg Baron. In this special report, we'll examine the major developments in this ongoing controversy and attempt to better clarify some of the many questions raised by this unsettling story.

In recent weeks, the disturbances among farmers and law officers have spread from central Stearns County, where it all began, to other areas of the state. And last week, for the first time, farmers were arrested and cited for contempt of court at a survey site in Pope County. Minnesota Public Radio reporter John Murley covered many of the major events in this controversy since its beginning and provides this chronological history of those events through tonight.

JOHN MURLEY: The all-important certificate of need for CPA and UPA to build the 400,000-volt line was granted by the Minnesota Energy Agency in early April, 1976. And that's when angry farmers along the proposed route corridor began stepped-up efforts to organize themselves and when they began their vocal, highly-visible battle against the line.

Several farmers, later to swell to several hundred farmers from central Stearns County and surrounding areas, formed Counties United for Rural Environment, referred to as simply CURE. The farmers, none of them experts in either scientific or environmental matters, protested the high-powered line for three basic reasons.

One, they objected to the line itself crossing their farmland. Two, no specific cost of the line to rural electric co-ops was assessed. And three, the ozone factor, or more accurately, the unknown ozone factor. These early concerns were expressed to MPR in this conversation of May 7 with Belgrade farmer Bruce Paulson and CURE consultant Jim Dunlop. First, Paulson--

BRUCE PAULSON: I'm not no specialist on it, but supposedly, when dust gets on the line, sparks fly off. And the spark creates ozone, which on any broadleaf plant like soybeans, navy beans, tomatoes, this ozone does damage to the cells and the leaves, where, when the damage is done to the cells, they die or don't produce as much as if they hadn't been damaged.

JIM DUNLOP: Ozone is a very serious air pollutant. And as far as crops, plants, and vegetation, and so forth go, it is the most serious of the pollutants, the air pollutants. And it has been shown-- the utilities and their consultants admit, acknowledge that there will be ozone pollution coming off of this line from corona loss and so forth.

BRUCE PAULSON: What we would like to see it done is put underground, where it doesn't affect us.

JOHN MURLEY: Belgrade former Bruce Paulson and CURE consultant Jim Dunlop speaking in Saint Cloud in early May, about the same time that Dunlop sent a letter to PCA Director Peter Gove, suggesting that the PCA's draft environmental impact statement did not contain all available environmental information on the proposed line, especially some general data recently assembled in New York State on the alleged health dangers from AC power lines.

The Minnesota line will be only the second major DC line built in the United States. Dunlop was referring to research conducted by Drs. Andrew Marino and Robert Becker of Syracuse University. With the New York data in hand, Dunlop went before the EQC on June 3 to seek to reopen the just-completed EQC public hearings.

JIM DUNLOP: Because of the lack of information in there and the lack of a definitive and complete record on the potential ozone damage and also the health information that came to light very late-- and I might add, there was no reason for that, in my mind-- the health information from Drs. Marino and Becker in New York.

I don't know how many of you people were aware of it or how many of you on your staffs were aware of it and Dr. Lawson's staff or just what, but you all seemed to express some surprise when CURE brought this information forward. A member of the health department came over to my house to pick up the testimony from the New York State case. It's this approach of build now and study later, and the health of the people be damned.

JOHN MURLEY: EQC Head Vanderpool told Dunlop that some published literature on the matter was not included in the impact statement because it was released just recently. Again, Dunlop--

JIM DUNLOP: Why in the hell didn't anybody on the staff of the state organizations in Minnesota know about that information? It's been around for 15 years, Peter.

SPEAKER: Their work has not been around for 15 years.

JIM DUNLOP: Well, yes, it has. They've been doing it for 15 years.

SPEAKER: [INAUDIBLE] problem.

SPEAKER: Let's stop and take a look-- common sense.

WARREN LAWSON: That information was entirely negative. We could not find from a search of literature significant, scientific studies validating health effects. We have reviewed and have only had access to Dr. Marino's testimony recently.

And even in that testimony, they state that they're dealing with-- their studies have dealt with AC currents and that they admit in their-- they stated in their own testimony that they have not analyzed the direct current case, and they cannot comment it. Their information, their suggested effects on the biological system simply cannot be translated, by their own testimony, from AC situations to DC situations.

JOHN MURLEY: June 3, State Health Commissioner, Warren Lawson. That same week, Dr. Marino told MPR that, although his data concerned possible harmful emission effects of AC lines, it was his belief that possibly similar alleged effects might exist on DC lines. The EQC, at this stage of the power line proceeding, was confronted not only with regular audiences of irate farmers, but several proposed routes for the 402-mile line from North Dakota.

Under the State Power Plant Siting Act of 1973 and EQC's interpretation of that act, EQC had 180 days from certificate of need approval in which to grant a line corridor to the power co-ops. The EQC could not reject the line's construction or postpone it. In effect, their hands were tied.

It was at this June 3 EQC meeting that the council approved both the line-building permit and the designated line route corridor. Frustrated and somewhat perplexed at the narrow guidelines, which greatly limited the EQC's options in dealing with the line, CURE members, most of whom, at this point, were Stearns County farmers, sought other methods of stopping moves to build the line.

Soon after the EQC's June meeting, power co-op surveyors began appearing at sites near where the line would be built. And farmers began gathering at those same locations to stop the survey work. These early confrontations in Stearns County were generally peaceful. But on June 8, CURE member Virgil Fuchs was arrested and charged with two felonies-- the general charge, allegedly trying to run surveyors off land adjacent to his farm with his tractor.

By the end of June, the friction between farmers and surveyors showed signs of igniting into serious physical confrontation, and all eyes turned to Stearns County Sheriff Jim Ellering who, on June 29, finally said what he would not do.

JIM ELLERING: --power line across western Stearns County. The people whose land is affected have vehemently objected. As sheriff of this county, I became involved when the landowners and other concerned citizens objected to trespass of their property.

In the meantime, the power companies expect my department to use unlimited force, if necessary, to accomplish their survey, and ultimately, the routing of the power line. In my opinion, this is a situation that began with the Environmental Quality Council at the request of the power companies. And that's where the problem should be remanded for resolution.

I will not point a gun at either the farmer or a surveyor. To point a gun is to be prepared to shoot, and this situation certainly does not justify either. It does justify a review of the conditions that bring about such citizen resistance.

JOHN MURLEY: June 29, Stearns County Sheriff Jim Ellering. At this point, conflicting rumors were everywhere of just what confrontations between farmers and surveyors had taken place and whether firearms were used to shoo off electric co-op personnel from private farmland. CURE member John Tripp, following Sheriff Ellering's announcement--

JOHN TRIPP: Well, we're going to continually place all our roads and fields under surveillance. And we must stop, and we will stop the surveying, which we think is illegal to start with.

SPEAKER: Do the farmers have firearms with them?

JOHN TRIPP: Oh, absolutely not, absolutely not. There's no truth to any rumor of that nature.

JOHN MURLEY: Through much of July, survey crew confrontations continued. Meetings aimed at lessening tensions were held and proved generally ineffective. By this time, CURE officials had discovered that the official testimony from two previous public hearings were missing from the EQC transcripts.

It turned out that one Virgil Fuchs, the same CURE member arrested for the alleged assault on surveyors with his tractor, had recorded both those hearings on his own cassette recorder. At the EQC's August 4 meeting, CURE attorney Norton Hadley presented the council with the missing testimony from the Painesville hearing.

NORTON HADLEY: I might say in passing that I have listened to a part of the Litchfield tape which occurred on April 14. We're not finished with that review yet ourselves. I think there are holes in it of a magnitude equal to or worse than what we see in the April 13--

JOHN MURLEY: The EQC agreed to review the missing testimony but not to reopen hearings due to the incomplete transcript record. It would be more than 3 and 1/2 months before a ruling was made.

SPEAKER: They tried to buy public opinion through this massive advertising campaign, and now, apparently, they're trying to buy off the farmers. And it isn't going to work. I mean, the farmers are way--

JOHN MURLEY: By early August, the power co-ops, faced with what appeared to be growing public sympathy for the farmers, began a media advertising campaign. United Power and Cooperative Power Associations also offered farmers more money for land needed for the power line corridor. CURE protested both moves. UPA spokesman Don Jacobson.

DON JACOBSON: For a long time, many of the farmers out there, and CURE in particular, have been saying that we have not been offering nearly enough for an easement across their land, and we should review our schedule and offer them more what they consider to be a true value for what they're giving up. And we have reevaluated, and we have increased the payment. And now, when we do that, they turn right around and say, well, we're trying to buy them off. I wish CURE and some of those people out there would make up their minds.

JOHN MURLEY: Nevertheless, the confrontations in Stearns County persisted. And on August 11, a temporary restraining order halting surveying was issued in Saint Cloud. The EQC met again on September 14, and again, CURE was pushing for reopening of the hearings, now not on the pending missing transcripts, but on what Attorney Hadley called the possible cumulative effect of the unknown ozone factor on the environment near the power line.

NORTON HADLEY: Nobody can sit in this hearing room this morning and say that the testimony in this case doesn't point to some danger. Not one of the witnesses for CU ever said that the ozone off this line was not dangerous. The question is, is the ozone from this line, when taken together with all of the other polluting effects from every other polluting entity traveling all over the state of Minnesota-- the question for you to resolve.

JOHN MURLEY: The director of the Pollution Control Agency, Peter Gove, responded to Hadley's comments, in part, this way.

PETER GOVE: It's true that these air quality parameters do interrelate. It's true that they perhaps have cumulative effects. I guess where we differ is this. If we had an excursion over the ozone standard today, and we nearly had one yesterday in southeastern Minnesota, there's nothing that I could do, nor the governor of this state, nor John Graff at the National Weather Service, nor advise anyone in the state to do to change that.

It's beyond our control. The ozone that has caused problems in this state the last several years-- and I'm thinking particularly of the incident two weeks ago, where we had a three-day period of elevated ozone levels-- that was materials that, in all probability, were transported from St. Louis and Chicago.

JOHN MURLEY: It was at this September 14 meeting that Health Commissioner Lawson agreed to hold general public hearings on the possible health hazards of DC power lines that would follow a literature search and conclusion of similar hearings in New York State. Those hearings could begin in Minnesota sometime this spring.

JOHN ROGERS: He tried to take the sign away from them, the farmer-- or the gentleman. I shouldn't say farmer because I don't know if he was. And when he attempted to do that, and the stick, or the handle, or whatever broke, and then he jabbed it into the stomach of the--

JOHN MURLEY: October 1, farmer-surveyor confrontations, which had stopped in Stearns County reappeared in Meeker. And Meeker County Sheriff John Rogers voiced the same complaint that had been expressed by other law officers.

JOHN ROGERS: I am going to the governor and let him make the decision. I don't think this is an-- it isn't a county matter anymore when you got six counties involved. And I think it's about time the governor gets involved in this here because it's more than what we can handle. If this comes up again, why, we just can't handle it. That's all there is to it.

JOHN MURLEY: During the entire power line dispute, Governor Wendell Anderson maintained a low profile, refusing to take emergency measures in hopes that the law would be upheld peacefully. He did meet with a small group of Pope County farmers in St. Paul, but his low profile was, at times, severely criticized by farmers who suggested that Anderson was politically motivated in an election year.

In recent weeks, farmer-survey crew confrontations have taken place in Pope County, where, last week, in the most serious confrontation to date, several farmers were cited for contempt of court for survey interference. On Tuesday, November 23, CURE officials filed an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court of a judge's ruling in Pope County. That court order issued on a motion from United Power Association instructed the County Sheriff to carry out arrests if survey interference persisted.

And on Tuesday, November 30, today, the EQC held a special meeting of the missing transcripts aspect of its public hearings. As expected, the council approved Hearing Officer Ted Melby's recommendation, made public earlier this month.

SPEAKER: As you know, we've spent considerable time, energy, and, I must say, a good number of taxpayers' dollars reviewing these tapes. And we now come to the conclusion that is encompassed in the resolution. There was nothing in the tapes to change Mr. Melby's mind, and I don't think there's anything in the tapes that would have changed the decision I voted on last June, and I trust that most others on the council will. And I think we should move on. All those in favor, signify by saying, aye.

SPEAKER: Aye.

SPEAKER: Opposed? So ordered.

JOHN MURLEY: In recent days, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Supreme Court, acting on CURE's appeal, filed last week, as requested, all pertinent records in the power line story for possible consideration by the high court. Virgil Fuchs' trial for his alleged assault on co-op surveyors has been postponed until these legal matters are concluded.

Following today's EQC meeting, CURE Attorney Hadley said his group's chances of favorable court action in the future may have been increased by the apparent admission by the EQC that its official transcripts were not a complete record. EQC member and DNR Commissioner Robert Herbst said at one point, no transcript is totally complete in every respect.

In this special report, we are focusing on just one power line dispute, one that has generated unusually widespread controversy. There are, of course, other power lines and plants being proposed around Minnesota. And in at least one development, farmers are getting into the process early. Northern States Power Company is now seeking an MEA certificate of need for power plant facilities in southern Minnesota.

And although a site for the plant has yet to be announced, local communities are beginning to keep a watchful eye on current proceedings. And this is, indeed, a head start. The NSP plant is not expected to be built until 1985. Greg.

GREG BARRON: The EQC's role in the power line controversy probably ended today. But the larger questions of Minnesota's energy consumption and environmental protection have not yet been resolved. Farmers consistently attack the high voltage lines as unhealthy. Environmental and health agencies disagreed. Farmers claim that they didn't really need any more energy, that the line was going to supply metropolitan users, a position the energy agency and the power cooperatives vehemently deny.

Finally, farmers expressed repeated dissatisfaction with the whole process of regulation. They said it shut them out, while some government officials praised the procedure as democratic. Rachel Krantz has investigated various energy questions in Minnesota, and she's been investigating this one. Rachel, first, what about the proposal that came up a few times during the hearings-- the suggestion that the power lines be put underground? Wouldn't that have solved the whole problem, or wasn't that feasible?

RACHEL KRANTZ: Well, Greg, I don't think it really would have solved anything. First of all, CURE wasn't particularly committed to that. That was just a suggestion it made to express its dissatisfaction that the government wasn't looking at more alternatives.

But even if they had really been pushing that particular alternative, most other people seem to agree that, first of all, the line underground would have been 5 to 16 times more expensive. And secondly, the environmental damage from an underground line is far greater, according to most people.

You have to put an oil sheath around the line, which means there's a danger of oil spills. The line heats up the ground, which means you can't use it for farmland. There's a lot of digging, a lot more construction-- heavy equipment and so on-- disturbing the land, mixing up the soils than you'd ever get with an overhead line.

GREG BARRON: What about the energy that the line is supposed to provide? Is everybody agreed that Minnesota does need more energy?

RACHEL KRANTZ: Well, everyone thinks that Minnesota needs more energy, but nobody is sure who in Minnesota is using up all that energy. Now, the power plant is supposed to provide 1,000 megawatts. That's to make up the difference between the projected capability of the two co-ops of about 600 megawatts, as opposed to their projected demand obligation of about 1,500 megawatts. That's by 1980.

So not only are needs rising, but sources elsewhere for those two co-ops, other places that they'd been buying energy from, are decreasing. The MEA says that it's possible, without this plant, not only would there be power outages actually in the two co-ops and the area that they serve, but it would affect the whole system in Minnesota because those two co-ops share power through the Mid-Continental Area Power Pool.

CURE says it's a question of the rural farmers subsidizing suburban users. They claim that it's the suburban users whose needs are going up. The Minnesota Energy Agency doesn't agree. They say that the co-ops serve 2/3 of rural Minnesota. They say even if you exclude the suburban co-op areas, the rural needs are still going up.

GREG BARRON: All right. Now, it seems to me you're saying, among other things, that the farmers are concerned with having to bear an unfair burden of the cost of this line. Now, what are some of these costs?

RACHEL KRANTZ: Well, the total figure for the plant-- and there have been a lot of numbers thrown around. The figure keeps going up. But the latest one is between $800 million to $1 billion. That's for the plant and the line. Now, those are the actual costs.

The other thing the farmers are concerned about-- not just their electric bills going up to bear the increased costs of construction for the plant and the line. They're also worried about what is known as the hidden costs. This is something that Mike Murphy, the energy consultant for the Upper Midwest Council, is very concerned about. I talked with him yesterday morning, and he gave me a whole list of these so-called hidden costs.

MIKE MURPHY: There are recent studies that show that local government in and around the UPA plant in North Dakota will experience a $16 million deficit before the plant goes into operation because there are no tax revenues being provided to help fund new schools, and sewer, and water, and police, et cetera. In addition to taking a look at how much land is worth dollar-wise on a market, how much is the land worth to the people who own it in terms of lifestyle, in terms of desired manner of living and physical existence?

The utility operates with some advantage in the sense that, as the cost of transporting coal goes up, it passes it on to the consumer. As the cost of taxes goes up, it includes them in the rate. And these things all come after the fact. So it really has no incentive to take a look at these things early on in the game.

RACHEL KRANTZ: Those are some of the things that were mentioned to me by Mike Murphy, the energy consultant for the Upper Midwest Council. There were a lot of other hidden costs that the farmers themselves brought up at the EQC hearings, and these included the possible dangers and certainly the inconvenience involved with irrigation, where they're worrying about the water hitting the power lines, the difficulties of spraying. Having pilots fly underneath the power lines is much more difficult than the way it works now.

GREG BARRON: Would it be fair to say, then, that the energy agency has not adequately considered these hidden costs?

RACHEL KRANTZ: Well, it's difficult to say whether or not they've considered them because it isn't clear to what extent they're supposed to consider them. A lot of observers feel that there isn't enough consideration of hidden costs in government analysis. And they feel that it's because the industry is basically still taking the initiative.

A utility decides when it wants a power plant, and then it has to comply with some governmental rules about environment, about energy needs, and so on. But basically, the industry is still taking the initiative, and it doesn't have to consider these other kinds of hidden costs. John [? Gustovich ?] of [INAUDIBLE] says that since the government has the responsibility of considering them, it's done it in a rather piecemeal fashion.

John Millhone, the Director of the MEA, vehemently disagrees. He feels that we do have a coherent energy policy, there is an open, democratic process, there is plenty of room in the process for considering all of these costs. But as I said, John [? Gustovich ?] of [INAUDIBLE] feels that the process really is not as wide as it should be yet.

[? JOHN GUSTOVICH: ?] We have nothing at all that smacks of a state energy policy, although, in various bits and pieces of legislation, we are admonished to be thrifty with our energy use and to conserve precious resources. We really don't have any broad-based, agreeable way to do that. The public just hasn't figured out what kind of future it wants and what sorts of steps it will take to ensure that future comes true.

RACHEL KRANTZ: That's just the opinion of John [? Gustovich ?] of [INAUDIBLE]. As I said, a lot of government officials don't agree. They feel the process is open enough. So again, it all gets back, as it always seems to with these energy questions, to the interpretation of the facts.

It's certainly helpful to have the facts, and it's important to be as familiar with them as possible. But I think, in the end, it gets down to not really a technical choice, but a political choice.

GREG BARRON: Thank you, Rachel. Reporter Rachel Krantz. What's supposed to happen when a company wants a new power plant or power line is that, first, it goes to the Minnesota Energy Agency to get a certificate of need-- in effect, the government agreeing that more energy is needed in the state. Then a general area, a corridor, is chosen for the power line by the Environmental Quality Council.

And finally, the EQC chooses the actual route for the line, supposedly taking into consideration, both times, the physical and social environment. But Dorothy [? Hossa, ?] Education Director of the Minnesota Energy Agency, explains that the present power line controversy began under a different set of rules.

[? DOROTHY HOSSA: ?] The Power Plant Siting Act was passed before the Certificate of Need Act, so that there was some work done on the routing of the line before the Certificate of Need application was processed. When the Certificate of Need was granted, there already was a pretty good idea of where the corridor was going to be, and even part of the routing was underway.

There was no law on need when CPA, UPA decided to build a line. Now whenever there's going to be a power plant, or a transmission line, or any kind of large energy facility, the builder has to come to the MEA to get a Certificate of Need.

And during that process, the kinds of questions that the farmers have raised in this CPA, UPA controversy are brought up and discussed. And we try to decide whether there is a real need for this extra power, whether the kind of facility is needed. In the case of a transmission line, we say, well, should we build a power plant instead close to where we need the electricity so we don't have to have a large transmission line?

There was a power plant in North Dakota being built. And they really didn't seem to be an alternative of building a power plant. But if the process had started earlier, as it can now for future transmission lines, we could have brought up at the need hearings the question of whether we shouldn't build a power plant close to where the power is going to be used and forget the transmission line completely.

And in the case of the CPA, UPA line, that might have been a viable alternative. I think there is room to question whether this is the best process. One of the problems with dividing the need process from the siting process is that not all the questions are asked at once. And they all do affect each other in one way or another.

I think the important thing is that, in the future, that citizen groups be aware that the Certificate of Need process exists, that it comes before the siting, that they don't wait to intervene in a case or even to testify at public hearings in a case of a power plant or a transmission line until after the need has been granted.

The need stage, even though it doesn't have a specific site in mind, bears a lot on the type of facility that will be built. And this has a lot of effect on the different groups. The basic message is that the need process is very important. It involves forecasting of how much power is needed.

It involves the effects of conservation on how much power is needed. It involves the type of facility. It involves alternatives to the facility, even the alternative of not building it at all.

[ELECTRONIC WHISTLING]

JIM ELLERING: I will not point a gun at either the farmer or a surveyor.

JOHN TRIPP: We must stop, and we will stop the surveying.

DON JACOBSON: I wish CURE and some of those people out there would make up their minds.

PETER GOVE: It's beyond our control.

JIM DUNLOP: Build now, and study later, and the health of the people be damned.

WARREN LAWSON: We could not find, from the searched literature, significant scientific studies validating health effects.

JOHN ROGERS: I am going to the governor and let him make the decision. I don't think this is a-- it isn't a county matter anymore when you got six counties involved. And I think it's about time the governor gets involved in this here because it's more than what we can handle. If this comes up again, why, we just can't handle it. That's all let's do it.

[ELECTRONIC WHISTLING]

SPEAKER: This special report has been produced by John Murley with production assistance by Greg Barron and Rachel Krantz. Technical supervision was by David Carlton Felland and Michael Moriarty. This has been a news presentation of Minnesota Public Radio.